In today's day in age, it seems as though a person cannot turn on a television or read the daily newspaper without seeing or hearing an argument about guns and the laws that accompany them. Whether the news is covering the most recent mass gun shooting or the newest stance taken by a politician, it's clearly evident that the past decade has been consumed with guns and The Second Amendment's right to bear arms. With all the coverage of a topic, there are bound to be a variety of opinions and arguments; however, I believe that the opinions of our fellow American's have become skewed by the emotions triggered by incidents people claim to be caused by guns. With such emotional responses, the rational reactions to the same situations have been drowned out by the news coverage of the raw emotions a person feels after an incident. The impulsive opinions have caused an issue with the gun control debate because they demand an immediate call to action, when an issue with so much debate and so many opinions needs time to prepare for a solution with longevity.

December 15, 1791 is the day when the Bill of Rights to the Constitution had been ratified. The United States founding fathers created 10 amendments that founded the basis of our country and how we've become the nation we are today. In those 10 amendments, the Second Amendment states that a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (The Constitution of the United States). Our founding fathers, who set this nation up for greatness, believed that it was every American's right to own a gun and that the government shall not impede on this right. If our founding fathers believed this and have allowed our country to become the most powerful country in the world, then who are we as every day citizens to question their judgment?  Just as recently as June 26, 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of District of Columbia et al. v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right" (District of Columbia). The Supreme Court found this ruling from their interpretation of the Second Amendment. Although the Constitution can be interpreted in different ways, it "is often describes as an evolving document that must take into account the realities of our society as a constantly changing culture" (Barnhizer).

If stricter gun control laws were taken into place, it would actually cause an increase in murder rates. Stricter gun control laws would make it harder, if not impossible, for law-abiding citizens to own a firearm for protection or recreational use, such as hunting. Whereas a criminal who has the intent of using a gun to harm another individual will find a way to receive a gun through the black market or other illegal means. There is proof of this because the definition of a criminal is a person who has committed a crime, and if a criminal has already committed a crime, what is stopping them from committing another to receive a firearm? The answer is nothing; a study from Mark Gius found that between 1980 and 2009 "assault weapon bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" (Gius). If stricter gun control laws have been placed in the past 10 years, but no significant change to the murder rate has developed, then it should be foretold that requiring even stricter gun control laws will not have a significant change to the murder rate. In fact, Jack Hunter's article describes multiple mass shootings that had actually been stopped by another person who was around the shooting that had also happened to carry a gun. In January of 2012, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and five others had been shot in a mass shooting. Joe Zamudio happened to be in the crowed and had a "carry-and-conceal weapon that gave him the confidence to tackle shooter Jared Lee Loughner" (Hunter). If this man did not have his gun placed on his hip, he would not have had the courage to tackle the shooter and possibly end the shooters life. Because of the confidence a firearm gave this man, he was able to prevent the mass shooting from turning into a bigger tragedy than it had already become. If there were stricter gun control laws, these laws might have prevented Joe Zamudio to own a firearm preventing him from having the confidence to tackle the shooter. John R. Lott, Jr. found that "states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes" (Lott).  Most people concerned with owning a firearm only own one for protection because the world has become prevalently frightening. By owning a gun it instills confidence in a law-abiding citizen to take matters into their own hands when a shooting breaks out.  

In many pro gun control arguments, people have claimed that the United States is the country with the highest rate of mortality against guns; however, these people are wrong. According to the CDC mortality from firearms was rated number 12 for leading causes of death. Gun mortality was listed behind heart disease, tumors, diabetes, and Alzheimer's to name a few (CDC). It seems that guns are not the issue for the amount of deaths Americans face each year, but rather our health. The time and money spent on debating gun laws and putting gun laws in order, should be spent on the health of humans as there is a higher risk of dying from health related issues. Internationally, the United States is ranked 28 in homicide rates. In fact, there are only "2.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people in the US in 2012 compared to 38.97 in Venezuela, 0.51 in Canada, 0.19 in Germany, 0.14 in Australia, 0.07 in England and Wales and 0.06 in France" (Dent). There are countries doing way worse than the United States are with gun homicides, yet the citizens of this country are demanding to put stricter laws on the ownership of guns. The people of this country need to become more educated on gun homicide and realize that the murder rates are not as bad as they might seem. With constant coverage of tragic events on the news, people assume that only bad things are happening in the United States; however, news channels only report the tragic events because of the headlines and amount of viewers they get. 

In opposition, people for stricter gun control laws, argue that as long as it is not an infringement on a citizen's right, then it should not be opposed. James Hamblin argues that infringement and regulation are two different things and that regulation is a part of every day life. He poses the question, "is your right to drive a car being infringed by the speed limit?" (Hamblin). Although the speed limit is regulated, it has in fact caused no troubles for every day drivers because it is not an infringement on their life. However, I would argue that since the speed limit has already been regulated, there would be no need to regulate it again or else it would become an infringement on a citizen's life. Similarly, requiring background checks on every person who inquires to buy a gun has already regulated the possession of a firearm; therefore, there is no need to add any additional regulations. 

Another argument people make for stricter gun control laws, is that stricter gun control laws should be taken into action because of the amount of crimes and rapes that happen to women involving guns. In the United States, approximately five women die each day from a gun related issue, whether it be the result of a domestic dispute or random (**). Although the argument states that stricter gun control laws would cause an increase in the amount of deaths of women caused by domestic violence or rape, the evidence would have to disagree. If stricter gun control laws were taken into place, criminals, the people who are committing the crimes against women, would still find the means to own a gun if they so desire. Therefore, if stricter gun control laws were taken into place then women would not have the ability to own a firearm to protect themselves from the criminals who would attack them. 

On February 26, 2012 a man who owned a gun killed Trayvon Martin. The man reported to the police that Trayvon Martin was a suspicious man who was walking around the street corner, and that police should be sent immediately. However, the man did not wait for the police and claimed that he had been attacked and used the gun to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin. In an emotional article written right after this shooting, Jill Lepore claims that if there were stricter gun control laws then this shooting would not have taken place. However, I disagree with this statement because the owner of this gun had never committed a crime, had never been issued a restraining order, and had no history of domestic abuse. If there were stricter gun control laws, this man would have passed with flying colors no matter what. The government would not have denied this man a gun because there was no foreseeable reason to deny him a gun. Therefore, stricter gun control laws could not have prevented the crime against Trayvon Martin, as tragic as it is. The only reform that could have potentially caused Trayvon Martin to still be alive, would be to make guns illegal for citizens of the United States; however, this would violate the Second Amendment and the rights our founding fathers granted the citizens of the United States.

Gun control can be defined as the rules and regulations of guns placed on an individual by the government. When referring to firearms, there are multiple types with various features. When referring to an assault weapon, it "is a weapon of intermediate caliber that is capable of selective fire. Secondly, a semi automatic rifle is a rifle where with one pull of the trigger, one shot is fired" (Works). In 2014, 31 percent of American households admitted to having a firearm, which is the "lowest level of reported gun ownership in the last 40 years" (Dent). Gun ownership is going down because there are more people in the world, and these people believe that there is no use for guns. People who have household guns are used most commonly for protection and sporting activities, such as hunting. People for stricter gun control laws don't understand that gun control laws are already in place as there were 23 million background checks "the FBI conducted in 2015, nearly 3 times the 8.5 million completed in 2000" (Dent).  The FBI is doing their job to conduct these background checks and is becoming more thorough with their checks. This should provide the citizens of the United States with a sense of relief because the FBI is not allowing people with flawed backgrounds receive a gun for the safety of themselves and the safety of those surrounding them. As further proof that the FBI is doing their job, in the year 2013 "the overall violent crime rate as well as the rate of murder in the United States both decreased 4.4 percent from the 2012 rates" (Marciniak). Although this percentage drop might seem small, it is a step in the right direction. Violent crimes and murders are going down in the United States, however, people are arguing for stricter gun control laws. This does not make any sense as the crime rates are going down, the only thing stricter gun control laws would do is take guns away from law-abiding citizens who deserve to have guns for protection.

In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed, which caused a reform in the criteria to own a gun and are the current gun control laws the United States has today. These current laws in place have required anyone who wants to own a firearm to undergo a detailed background check by the government. This prevention act made it illegal for fugitives and criminals who spent a year or more in to be able to receive a gun. People who suffer from a mental disorder or have been found mentally unstable are not permitted to own a firearm. A person who legally wants to obtain a gun must not have any recent or past issues with substance abuse of any kind. To own a gun in the United States, a person must be a legal citizen and should have never renounced their citizenship. A citizen may not receive a gun if they have a domestic violence charge or a restriction order ordered against them (H.R. 159). There are already gun control laws in place that don't allow people who have the potential to harm someone to receive a gun. If the government is requiring all personnel to receive a background check to get approved for owning a gun, then there are already gun control laws in place. These background checks give the intended buyer's entire life on a sheet of paper, where the merchant will either accept them or deny them based on their history.   

Because gun control is so prevalent in America, stricter gun control laws in some sort of way would affect almost everybody. Starting small, stricter gun control would have an effect on the pro gun control advocates because they will finally have received what they have been pleading for by the governments. They would no longer be attending rallies and appearing on television to state their argument. Next, the judicial courts would be affected because of the money spent on lawyers and Supreme Court cases needed to revise the amendments our founding fathers made. The N.R.A., or National Rifle Association, would be affected greatly, as in there would no longer exist a community for people to gather together and create a bond over a common interest. Along with the N.R.A., private sellers would receive less business, as the amount of buyers would be scarce causing their merchandise and sells to dwindle. Gun manufacturers would be affected a little more than the private sellers, as the need for making guns would not be in as high of a demand causing people to lose their jobs and create a smaller gun supply. Finally, gun owners would be affected the most buy stricter gun control laws because it would cause some, if not all, current gun owners to either have some or all of their guns taken away from them. 

Instead of stricter gun control laws, there are other means that can reap as much benefit, if not more, while still pleasing all of society. For example, gun safety and education about guns should become standard. If someone has the intention of buying a gun, they should be offered to attend a class that teaches how to use a gun safely. After attending a class, a person would have more knowledge of how to use a gun safely and be able to take precautionary measures with their new firearm. 

